Rajinder Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 20736 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajinder Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 November, 2024

Author: Deepak Sibal

Bench: Deepak Sibal

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153329-DB



LPA-1637-2024 (O&M)                      1


105
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH
                                  LPA-1637-2024 (O&M)
                                  Date of decision: 21.11.2024

Rajender Kumar and others
                                                               ......Appellants
                                V/s
State of Haryana and others
                                                               ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:    Mr. Naveen Kumar Mehra, Advocate and
            Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mann, Advocat
            for the appellants.

            Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

                                ****

DEEPAK SIBAL J. (ORAL)

1. The present intra Court appeal is directed against judgment dated

04.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the

appellant's writ petition through which they had sought issuance of directions

to permit them to continue to serve the Haryana Roadways as Sweepers.

2. A few relevant facts may be noticed.

3. The Haryana Roadways, Kaithal Depot, engaged M/s Krishan

Management Agency (for short - the Agency) to provide manpower to serve

as Sweepers/Peons at the Depot. As per the contract, the Agency provided the

agreed manpower which included the appellants. After the appellants had put

in service for 3 to 10 years, an order dated 28.02.2019 was passed by the

General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal informing all concerned that

the contract of the Agency had come to an end on 28.02.2019 and therefore, a

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153329-DB

fresh contract for providing manpower had now been entered into with the

Swami Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Limited, Gohana (for

short - the Society). The appellants feared that they would be now be relieved

and therefore, knocked the doors of this Court through filing of a petition

under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to challenge therein order dated

28.02.2019 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal. A

learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that the appellants were

contract labourers and therefore, their cause, if any, was against the contractor

and since their contractor did not fall under the purview of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India, their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian

Constitution was not maintainable. Accordingly, the appellants' writ petition

was dismissed. Such judgment of the learned Single Judge is the subject

matter of challenge through the instant intra Court appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

5. In pursuance to an agreement, the Agency was supplying

manpower to the Haryana Roadways which included the appellants. The

contract of the Haryana Roadways with the Agency came to an end on

28.02.2019. Therefore, for providing manpower, after a fresh tendering

process, another contractor was engaged by the Haryana Roadways, Kaithal.

The appellants were working in the Kaithal Depot of Haryana Roadways as

Sweepers/Peons and that their services had been provided through the

contractor whose contract had come to an end. They feared that they shall now

lose their jobs. Therefore, they knocked the doors of this Court through filing

of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking therein

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153329-DB

to challenge the action of the Haryana Roadways of switching over from one

contractor to the other.

6. In the above facts, we are of the opinion that the appellants would

had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Haryana Roadways

bringing to the notice of its officers that from 01.03.2019 onwards a new

contractor would be providing manpower. It is the appellants' contractor who

could be aggrieved by the letter/order dated 28.02.2019, impugned by the

appellants through their writ petition. The grievance of the appellants, if any,

would be against their contractor for which their remedy would not lie under

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

7. In the light of the above, we find no merit in the instant appeal.

Dismissed.

8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands

disposed of.

(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE

(DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 21.11.2024 JUDGE Sapna Adhikari

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3